Cited by 140Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryDigital Mental Health InterventionsCancer survivorship and care

Reducing depression in stroke survivors and their informal caregivers: A randomized clinical trial of a web-based intervention.

Open access
Smith, Gregory C., Egbert, Nichole, Dellman-Jenkins, Mary, Nanna, Kevin, Palmieri, Patrick A.·2012·Rehabilitation Psychology

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the efficacy of a Web-based intervention for alleviating depression in male stroke survivors (SSs) and their spousal caregivers (CGs) that blends both peer and professional support. DESIGN AND METHODS: The research consisted of an intervention protocol evaluated by a focus group of rehabilitation professionals, a "think aloud" session conducted with female stroke CGs, and a usability test of the intervention's online features with 7 female stroke CGs. Efficacy of the final protocol was tested in a 2-group randomized clinical trial with a sample of 32 CG-SS dyads. The CGs in the intervention condition received an online group intervention. Intervention components were based on the Stress Process Model. Those CGs in a control condition received minimal support with individualized access to relevant online information. Measures of depression, as well as the secondary outcomes of mastery, self-esteem, and social support, were obtained from SSs and CGs at pretest, posttest, and 1-month later. RESULTS: At posttest and 1 month later, CGs in the intervention condition reported significantly lower depression than CGs in the control condition with baseline depression controlled. There was no significant effect on depression among SSs. Although no significant treatment effects for either SSs or CGs were found on the secondary outcomes, posttreatment changes on some constructs were significantly correlated with change in depression. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: CGs benefit from Web-based programs that help them better understand both their emotional needs and those of the SS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0029587

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The remaining intervention was also delivered to the dyad and was the only one with the dual focus on assisting caregivers manage their own depression as well as supporting them in managing the care recipients' depression.

    “The remaining intervention was also delivered to the dyad and was the only one with the dual focus on assisting caregivers manage their own depression as well as supporting them in managing the care recipients' depression.67”

    From Non-pharmacological Interventions for Caregivers with Depression and Caregivers of Care Recipients with Co-morbid Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Methods (Intervention Condition; page unavailable) describe a dual focus: helping caregivers reduce their own distress and provide emotional care to stroke survivors. But the Discussion (page unavailable) says stroke survivors were not directly involved, apart from homework interactions with caregivers, so describing the intervention as delivered to the dyad overstates their participation. The source also does not establish that it was the only intervention with this focus among those reviewed by the citing paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Glueckauf RL Noël LT Toseland RW Haigler DH Monahan DJ 2011 Telehealth and family caregiving: Developments in research, education, policy, and practice Education and support programs for caregivers: Research, practice, and policy 85 105 New York, NY Springer
  2. Palmer S Glass TA 2003 Family function and stroke recovery: A review Rehabilitation Psychology 48 255 265

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, G. C., Egbert, N., Dellman-Jenkins, M., Nanna, K., & Palmieri, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Kent State University (US)
  • Summa Health System (US)
Venue
Rehabilitation Psychology
Published
2012-08
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
196-206
ISSN
  • 0090-5550 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1544
OpenAlex
W2005060132
Cited by
140
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6
FWCI
6.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Rehabilitation Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Sponsor name not included (grant number R21NR010189-02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
depression, stroke survivors, spousal caregivers, informal caregivers, online intervention, online group intervention, peer support, professional support, stress process model, mastery, self-esteem, social support, dyadic intervention
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Depressive Disorder, Female, Health Education, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Self-Help Groups, United States, Multivariate Analysis, Caregivers, Telemedicine, Survivors, Spouses, Internet, Stroke, Social Networking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review